Talk:United States of America

From Wikivoyage
Jump to navigation Jump to search

This is not a political forum; please restrict all discussion here to discussion about how best to improve the United States of America article. Off topic debates, political rants, nonsense poetry, etc. will all be removed as it is added. This is a travel guide and political disputes are utterly irrelevant except insofar as they directly bear upon the experience of a traveller. See Wikivoyage:Be fair#Political disputes for further guidelines.


Archived discussions

Formatting and language conventions

For articles about United States of America, please use the 12-hour clock to show times, e.g. 9AM-noon and 6PM-midnight.

Please show prices in this format: $100 and not USD 100, 100 dollars or US$100.

Please use American spelling (color, labor, traveled, realize, center, analog, program).


Update Warning Box[edit]

After the Capitol attack on January 6, 2021, should we add that to the warning box? CatDog1234539 (talk) 16:16, 7 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't think we need to. What happened yesterday seems to confirm that the warning box is accurate, but in terms of advice for travelers, I'm not sure anything else needs to be said beyond what's already there. —Granger (talk · contribs) 17:04, 7 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Mx. Granger:Ok. CatDog1234539 (talk) 17:11, 7 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There is a warning box on Washington, DC. We don't put warnings about local or regional events in a national article. Ground Zero (talk) 18:46, 7 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
According to national media here in the US, there is online chatter taking place about more incidents of political extremism potentially in the works in the capitals of all the states on Jan 17 (under the theme of gun rallies) and then in DC on Jan 20 (e.g. https://www.thedailybeast.com/the-far-right-is-already-scheming-for-a-post-riot-sequel and https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna1253546) Maybe we should say something to the effect of being careful about traveling to these places on these days? Maybe it is fearmongering, but as a US citizen I can say for me it is kind of scary, and I don't think I would want to be a foreign tourist and caught up in the middle of it. Lazarus1255 (talk) 02:17, 9 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'd support such a warning. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:30, 14 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Okay, I guess someone got it in there. Thanks.Lazarus1255 (talk) 16:52, 15 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Associated Press[edit]

Shouldn't we mention something about it since it's probably considered the most authoritative and unbiased source of hard news in the U.S.? The dog2 (talk) 19:37, 14 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Considered by whom? I've lived in the U.S. my whole life and have more than a passing familiarity with the workings of the news media, and I can attest that while the AP certainly is authoritative and unbiased, it's not the only American news source that can be described as such, nor is it widely singled out and renowned by the general public as being the most authoritative and unbiased. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 19:43, 14 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's completely unimportant for visitors to the U.S. to know about AP or UPI. Few ordinary Americans are familiar with them, and if any visitor to the U.S. reads a newspaper, they're likely to see stories from those agencies, anyway. I actually think the entire section on the media isn't really necessary, but the New York Times and Washington Post and the TV networks are a hell of a lot more widely known than news agencies. But by the way, since this section is coming up, why is PBS described as "taxpayer-subsidized public broadcasting" instead of "public broadcasting subsidized by contributors"? Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:04, 14 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Also, I don't think it's reasonable to consider the New York Daily News' news coverage particularly biased and not "reasonably balanced". Why are we making that claim? Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:06, 14 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I was always under impression that the news agencies that are regarded as the most authoritative and unbiased in the world are AP (based in the U.S.), Reuters (based in the U.K.) and AFP (based in France). But yeah, I realise that many newspapers just publish news sources from one of these agencies. The dog2 (talk) 20:52, 14 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Did anyone say UPI was more biased than AP? Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:57, 14 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No. I didn't mention UPI just because they seem to be rather niche. I don't see as many stories from them in other news sites compared to the "Big Three". The dog2 (talk) 21:13, 14 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This obviously contentious and clearly not needed in a travel guide. Ground Zero (talk) 22:12, 14 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't think it's very contentious, just rather trivial for non-journalists. Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:06, 15 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
However, I still want to delete the tendentious claim that the New York Daily News is unusually unbalanced in its news coverage, and we should probably address the question of who provides most of the funding for PBS, since we've sought to define "public TV". Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:09, 15 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Gotta disagree about the Daily News. It's safe to say that more than half of us feel their worldview comports more with reality than their main competitor, but for me the question is one of market positioning, and the answer is that they very clearly intend themselves as the liberal mirror image of the Post. Too many cheeky Trump-mocking headlines to claim otherwise. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 14:42, 15 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
They may have gotten more liberal in the last few years, but historically, they've been centrist but populist (in the sense of working on behalf of ordinary people) and haven't hesitated to endorse Republicans. Yes, their headlines are cute, but the actual coverage isn't unusually skewed. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:16, 15 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Respect[edit]

The Respect section was well put of of proportion to the article. There was repetition, and a fair bit of talking down to the readers. We should not treat readers like children who need to be told who to conduct themselves in every situation. Nor should we give the impression that Americans are so volatile and quick to take offence that a foreigner has to avoid talking about anything at all. I have cut it back to a more reasonable size and respectful scope, and moved the points that relate to students to the appropriate article. Ground Zero (talk) 02:01, 13 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Regional variation in American cuisine[edit]

While I agree that details on regional American cuisines belong in the American cuisine article, or the regional articles, I think it will be useful to have a cursory overview on how American cuisine differs from region to region. American cuisine does, after all, differ quite significantly between regions. For instance, the German-influenced simple and hearty meat-heavy cuisine of the Midwest is quite different from the spice heavy, and to some extent French-influenced cuisine of Louisiana. And not to mention the emphasis on seafood in New England and Maryland, which you obviously won't get in the Midwest given that it is inland and away from the sea. And as a travel guide, I think we should let foreigners have an idea of what to expect when travelling around the U.S. and trying the local cuisines. The dog2 (talk) 21:37, 2 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The American cuisine article is prominently linked at the top of the Eat section. We use branch articles to avoid overloading the country article with everything there is to know about the country, and making the article so long as to be unreadable. As the edit history of the talk page shows, many editors over the years have noted concern about the length of this article, and frustration that contributors add so much here while ignoring regional and topic articles. My edits only reduced the article to the size it was on May 19. 2021, less than two weeks ago. Is there any text in this article that you think is less important than want you want to add, i.e., that could be moved to another article or removed altogether? Ground Zero (talk) 22:33, 2 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'd only propose adding a single sentence giving a cursory overview on how American cuisine differs between regions, similar to what it in the China article. I have in fact been adding stuff to some of the regional articles in the past few days, but I can only add content when I travel to those regions. The dog2 (talk) 22:58, 2 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You added quite a lot more than a single sentence today, in May and in April. Does your lack of a response to my suggestion that you find things less important to remove or move from the article mean that you are not interested in taking that approach, or that what you are proposing to add is less important than what is there now? Ground Zero (talk) 00:52, 3 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't think there's a consensus that all edits must be a net negative in length, but since you insist, what do you think is unimportant here? I'm guessing we could probably cut down detail on the types of food, perhaps form the barbecue section. The dog2 (talk) 01:31, 3 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
But there is agreement that this article should not be allowed to grow indefinitely. Take a look at the discussions from 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018 and 2020. I've already taken a bunch of stuff out, as noted, but that didn't even undo two weeks of additions. And as you know, I've taken the lead on creating new articles to shift content out of this, and on culling the excess verbiage. It is not my job to cut stuff out so that others can add whatever they feel like. If you think that this article should be allowed to grow without limit, you should make the case for that position. Ground Zero (talk) 01:54, 3 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The article already states, "While many types of food are unchanged throughout the United States, there are a few distinct regional varieties of food". Maybe just change "a few" to "many" if you want to drive home the point that there are noticeable differences and variation among foods and dishes between regions. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 10:07, 3 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Indef protection for this article[edit]

Given the large amount of vandalism on this article that has been continually going on for a long period of time, I would suggest an indef protection for this article, similar to the North Korea article. I think the risk vs. benefit is not worth keeping this page open for anons and new users. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 02:51, 16 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oppose, too drastic. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:16, 16 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose I feel it is misleading to say it's the travel guide that anyone can edit while having one of the most important articles be locked to most users Tai123.123 (talk) 04:53, 16 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Okay, but where was the consensus for the North Korea article's indef protection? Because that's on a similar boat as this article, both which get vandalised too often (NK before indef protection). SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 05:00, 16 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I see no discussion about it on Talk:North Korea. It should be lifted. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:06, 16 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Although I'm not sure whether lifting NK would be a good idea. Given the high media attention it gets, we'd be doing something more productive then reverting vandalism which the risk vs. benefit isn't that great. The same with the Yoga article. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 07:37, 16 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, let's see how much vandalism it gets, but I don't agree with indefprotecting articles other than the main page, policy pages and similar pages. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:57, 16 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
But I definitely don't think lifting the indef protection from the Yoga article would be a good idea though, just given how much spam/touting it gets. But I do think other pages like Cultural attractions, Previous Featured travel topics, Discover and Destinations should be protected because... why would a newbie want to edit it? SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 00:09, 17 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Probably justifiable because they're either umbrella articles for other articles or archives. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:46, 17 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think we need to be careful regarding overreach of admin powers, particularly with the proposed protection of archive pages that have received no vandalism as far as I am aware. There’s a difference between administration and policing, and I fear we’re getting too close to the latter by protecting pages unharmed by vandalism, where there isn’t a reason why vandalism would occur. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 03:04, 17 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I presume you're talking about Previous FTT and Discover. The question is, why leave it open for anons? As far as we want to keep things open, there is a limit on how much we can keep things open. Both these have zero reasons for a newbie to edit it, given that only temp editors can edit the main page and only AC users can edit Template:Discover, and disruption to both these pages won't give Wikivoyage a good look. Others like Cultural attractions, that may be left open, but again, there's a limit on how much we can leave things open to all. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 04:29, 17 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
To clarify, I meant indef semi-protect (to me: protect = semi-protect, fully-protect: admin only protect, temp-protect: temp editors+admins). SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 04:29, 17 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't think vandalism in archives is any big issue, and IPs might very well spot some glitch. Newbies would hardly know what errors to fix or not fix, but there is no "newbie protect". The only reason to protect proactively is when vandalism could go undetected (for that other tools are better), would be hard to clean up, or make a very big impact if timed right. I think people nowadays understand that wikis get vandalised, so the latter is improbable to be a major thing, but is the reason for protecting the main page. –LPfi (talk) 14:55, 17 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Southwest Airlines[edit]

Do widespread flight cancelations justify a cautionbox? --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 23:19, 10 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Definitely yes. 1,800 is way too much and is definitely disruptive. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 23:26, 10 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Agreed. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:42, 11 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I disagree. It happens fairly often that hundreds of flights are canceled because of weather events. If we start adding caution boxes for this kind of thing we will never be able to keep up.
I'm not sure how the caution box would help readers, anyway. If their flight has been canceled they will presumably have been contacted by the airline, and anyway they are unlikely to be checking the United States of America Wikivoyage article for updates on an imminent (probably domestic) flight. —Granger (talk · contribs) 16:47, 11 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is being mentioned in the news again today. I’ve followed the reports and seen many explanations, from weather to vaccine wildcat strikes, but regardless it needs to be mentioned somewhere. Notably many news sites have been reporting almost 30% cancellations at Southwest and much less for their competitors, so it implies it is not due to weather at locations, but an internal Southwest issue. If this continues to cause chaos at airports, travelers should know about it. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 21:10, 11 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Free speech[edit]

I know that free speech is allowed by the constitution, and the US might be the country with the freest speech, but I am still not found of the wording:

"However, the Constitution also guarantees freedom of speech to a greater degree than in other Western democracies"
  1. Do we know no other Western country allows as free speech?
  2. This sounds like Western democracies in general would not allow much free speech.
  3. Why do we need to compare? This is in a section on racism!

LPfi (talk) 20:52, 4 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Measuring the degree to which one constitution guarantees free speech more than another constitution is very subjective and beyond the ability of a small group of amateur travel guide writers. We should avoid using Wikivoyage as a platform for personal opinions, and should not waste time arguing over stuff like thus. Ground Zero (talk) 21:08, 4 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In the U.S., freedom of speech is absolute, as guaranteed by the First Amendment. You can never be prosecuted no matter how abhorrent the things you say, the only exception being direct threats of violence. So for instance, while you can be prosecuted for hate speech in say, Canada, Australia or the UK, your right to say the most abhorrent things imaginable is constitutionally protected in the U.S. For instance, you are legally guaranteed the right to hold a rally chanting "All Muslims are terrorists!" in the U.S., while that is illegal even in other Western countries. The only thing you cannot do is explicitly call upon the crowd to kill Muslims. The dog2 (talk) 21:15, 4 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I was going to say something similar, but The dog2 expressed it better than I would have. However, the U.S. is not the only non-dictatorship that allows hate speech, so we could look into the phrasing of the passage in question. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:17, 4 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think the current phrasing is fine:
However, the Constitution also guarantees freedom of speech to a greater degree than in most other Western democracies, so it is unfortunately possible to encounter racist comments (both blatant and subtle) in public forums.
If you guys don't like "most," we could change it to "many." Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:23, 4 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The dog2 has compared the US to three other Western democracies, not all of them. Also, they did not provide any sources to support their personal opinions. I'm not asking for sources: I'm asking that we not get into a big debate about one contentious sentence that is of marginal relevance to travelling in the USA. Let's stick to being travel writers. Ground Zero (talk) 21:24, 4 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The current (=former) wording is OK. It is not misleading even if the US would happen to have the freest speech. We don't need to say more on this, at least not in this section. –LPfi (talk) 21:47, 4 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
With the exception of authoritarian countries, I don’t know why the freedom of speech issue is important to the traveler. Freedom of speech is a trait of multiple countries (and is difficult to define), so I don’t think is relevant to the article. --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 21:10, 5 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Or we can just use the changed text to apply it to the relevant section of the article. --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 21:11, 5 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Selfie City, it's relevant in that, unlike in many other countries, racist statements are not prosecutable and are protected speech in the U.S. I don't understand what the problem is with the current phrasing. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:58, 5 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yeah, I know, by the changed text I meant your italicized version changing “most” to “many,” to be clear. --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 00:27, 6 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I inferred from LPfi’s comment that the remarks on free speech had been added to the article with no stated connection to race, so I thought they were irrelevant and should be removed. When I read the full text, I understood a connection was being made between the two and proposed using the “changed” texta d adding it to the article. --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 00:29, 6 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I understand. I support "most" but don't care whether it's "most" or "many", so whoever cares more can choose which of those words to use. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:54, 6 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Sorry for not giving enough context for my initial post. I reverted a change and got myself reverted. I think there is no problem now, with the "most" reinserted. –LPfi (talk) 19:09, 6 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Vandalism of Russian restaurants?[edit]

I'm sorry to hear that. The dog2, where has that happened, and how do you know what the motivation of the vandals is? My question is about the entire contents of this paragraph. Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:00, 17 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That is terrible news indeed. A Russian restaurant in Vancouver has also received harassing phone calls, even though it is fundraising for Ukrainian relief. But I don't think these news items belong in the USA article of Wikivoyage. This isn't an issue that affects travellers to the USA generally. Wikinews would be a better place for this. Ground Zero (talk) 18:11, 17 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Here's an example: [1]. I understand people want to show solidarity with Ukraine, but as I said, let's not conflate ordinary Russian citizens who had no say in this whatsoever with the actions of Putin, so I think we should have something warning about potential discrimination that Russian citizens might face. And it is certainly possible that you might encounter the vandals themselves if you dine in a Russian restaurant. The dog2 (talk) 18:30, 17 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(edit conflict) It is sad, and an example of the all-too-common problem of justified anger being mischanneled into damaging discrimination and hostility. But I agree with Ground Zero that it doesn't belong in this article – the paragraph as written is not travel-oriented, and this problem is not limited to the US. —Granger (talk · contribs) 18:39, 17 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
After reading the Axios article, I think this warning should stay in the U.S. article. It may be an issue in some other countries, too, but it's clearly something travelers who are or may be mistaken for being Russian may want to watch out for. I will make sure to get some takeout from Anyway Cafe, my local Russian restaurant, soon. Fuck these bigoted idiots! Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:43, 17 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No, it is not limited to the US. And Russians abroad are often there exactly because they couldn't stand Putin's politics. Here I haven't heard of violent incidents, but some Ukrainian food has been removed from shops and menus because it was thought to be Russian. Some kind of warning could be warranted, but I don't know whether it makes sense to put that in every western country article; I don't think travellers should boycott Russian restaurants, and the threat to Russians is probably similar to what Westerners could face in connections to some US wars, and many nationalities in some country where there have been hostile relations (which the traveller may not even be aware of). A paragraph in Stay safe? We have something in Talk#Respect. –LPfi (talk) 19:06, 17 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Anyplace where individual Americans might face violence, discrimination or hostility would absolutely warrant a warning for travelers who are or might be mistaken for Americans. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:09, 17 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Absolutely. Just as we should not conflate ordinary Russian citizens with the actions of the Russian government, or ordinary Muslims with the actions of Al-Qaeda, we should not conflate ordinary American citizens with the actions of the U.S. government. The dog2 (talk) 21:31, 17 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
For whatever it's worth, I will say that I faced very little hostility as an American when I traveled to France and Malaysia during the U.S. aggression against Iraq. In neither country were people reluctant to accept my statement that I was a member of the leftist opposition who opposed the war and opposed and hated G.W. Bush. Speaking French and Malay was definitely helpful, too. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:45, 17 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As it's not US-specific, I don't think it should be mentioned only here. But anyway I'll try and head to my nearest Russian restaurant (about 20 kilometers from where I live) and may report back. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 09:51, 18 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think most people are sensible and few would resort to violence against strangers, but I also assume that vandals and those looking for somebody to beat up might prefer to choose target based on some pretext. I don't think you need to be afraid as Russian, but if you find yourself in that dark alley where you shouldn't go, you perhaps shouldn't speak Russian, and in some countries you shouldn't wave that US flag. –LPfi (talk) 10:02, 18 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── People can be mistaken for being Russian too. To the untrained ear, Russian, Ukrainian, Belarusian, Bulgarian, Czech and Polish all sound similar. But perhaps the warning can be to be wary of speaking Russian or another Slavic languages in the street. I know the Ukrainians are Slavs too, but most Americans won't be able to tell Russian and Ukrainian apart. The dog2 (talk) 13:39, 18 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Let's not jump to conclusions. Have Poles, Serbs, Ukrainians, etc. reported being attacked or harassed on U.S. streets? Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:52, 18 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So far, not that I've heard of. Even with regard to random Russians walking down the street, I've not heard of anything, but given that Russians are mostly white and Christian, you can't really tell a Russian apart from a white American if they're just walking down the street. Should America go to war with China (and unlike with Russia which is only supported by a minority of Americans, war with China has much stronger support with about half the American population in favour going to war with China to help Taiwan secure formal independence), I'd imagine it'd be much more common for regular Chinese people in the street to be targeted for abuse given that they stand out from the white majority. The dog2 (talk) 18:01, 18 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We don't have to guess, because unfortunately, as you know, there has been a lot of violence against people who look East Asian in the U.S. in recent years, regardless of their national origin. But I don't think we should be proactively warning people not to speak Russian or other Slavic languages on the streets of, like, New York. There are thousands and thousands of ex-Soviets here. Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:20, 18 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We should base warnings on threats that we know are real, not theories that individual editors might have. Ground Zero (talk) 18:28, 18 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Exactly. Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:34, 18 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Solar eclipse[edit]

I commented out the mention of a solar eclipse, because I really don't think that

  1. many will travel to the US, just to see the solar eclipse
  2. is worth a mention in any country article that has an area larger than a country like Malaysia

I commented it out pending this discussion, as this information is already present in every single damn article where the solar eclipse will be visible, do we really also need to keep it in the country article? I propose we just remove that statement entirely as ultimately, a solar eclipse is NOT one the most interesting things to see in the US. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 07:04, 16 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's interesting to see if you are able to while you're here. I think it should be listed only in an article about astronomical phenomena, unless there are particularly good places to see it. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:20, 16 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If I'm not mistaken, Grahamsands spammed the solar eclipse across many pages sitewide, including the destinations where it can be seen (and it's also worth noting this discussion). It was the first thing listed in many articles (though didn't check if it was on this article), until Ground Zero cleaned it up across many articles, but I think adding it into a destination covering an area of 300,000 km2 is too broad. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 07:35, 16 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Given the lack of further response, I've removed it. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 09:56, 31 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Latino English[edit]

From some videos I have been watching, it seems like there is a something called Latino English that is spoken among Hispanic communities. Apparent, it does vary geographically; Miami Latinos are mainly influenced by Cuban Spanish, New York Latinos by Puerto Rican and Dominica Spanis, and California and Texas Latinos mainly by Mexican Spanish. Does anybody think this is worth a mention? The dog2 (talk) 18:18, 19 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Spanglish is mentioned in the article. No further detail is needed. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:29, 19 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree with Ikan Kekek. —Granger (talk · contribs) 11:24, 20 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Electric socket type[edit]

There have been so many complaints over the years that this article is too long, but in at least this respect, it's not long enough: the type of electric socket should be covered in the "Cope" section. If no-one else gets to it, I may look up the description of standard U.S. electric plugs and sockets, because like most Americans, I think of them as just normal, with no need for much thought or description... Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:06, 22 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sure, go ahead. I think the two-pronged version is called Type A, and the three-pronged version is called Type B. The dog2 (talk) 17:45, 22 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I saw that basic information was already in Electrical systems, so I added that plus the fact that the standard outlets are 120 v and the heavy duty ones are 220 v. Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:39, 22 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Roe v Wade overturned[edit]

I'm sure everyone got the news now, so is there anything that people think we should cover under Stay Safe or Respect? I highly doubt many people will travel to the U.S. specifically to get an abortion, but I imagine there must be lots of protests going on right now regarding this decision. The dog2 (talk) 15:19, 27 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, this needs to be mentioned because it will undoubtedly affect some travelers, not just because of demonstrations, which are unlikely to have a great effect on them, but because in case they need an abortion, they may have to travel somewhere other than a state they're in. State articles will need to be updated as needed. Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:21, 27 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So what do you think should be mentioned? I'm not sure it would be practical to list all the states where abortions are illegal. The dog2 (talk) 17:50, 27 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It will be in state articles as appropriate, in the "Cope" sections. In this article, I would support mentioning that in June 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned a 1973 decision that made abortion legal nationwide, so if you end up needing an abortion while you are traveling, you should check the current laws of the state you're visiting or look at Wikivoyage's state articles to understand whether or under what circumstances you can get an abortion in that state. I also think we should update the "Cope" sections of states where abortion is legal. I may start doing that later today if no-one beats me to it. Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:58, 27 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree that we should mention the above information about the abortion law somewhere within this article, though it should be on emphasis of travel to states, not the legal issues, in the U.S. article because this is the information travelers want to know. If people want to know about the ramifications of the case itself, and protests, etc., there exist a wide range of sources covering that in more detail than we ever could or should do.
Not in the national US article, but somewhere we should probably provide the Commons image showing the legality in abortion in different states. That said, at the current time there is a lot of uncertainty in states where abortion was made illegal a century ago (Wisconsin and Michigan, I believe), and then made legal with Roe. I don't know whether Commons' legal map would represent the on-the-ground situation in those states but as travel for abortion is likely to increase over the coming months, we should probably include a map of the states' laws somewhere. However, the map would need to be a Commons map that is regularly updates as we're likely to see many more laws banning or codifying abortion, followed by lawsuits and court action, in the coming months, as we saw in Louisiana today. --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 21:06, 27 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
To my knowledge, abortion is still legal nationwide if it can be demonstrated that continuing the pregnancy will put the mother's life in danger, so if true, that could be mentioned. But otherwise, in many states, you are now forced to carry the baby to term even if yours was the result of a rape. The dog2 (talk) 21:13, 27 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't agree that Wikivoyage should try to track legality of abortion in states. We don't do it for countries. It isn't a regular part of travel. If we could do it well, I wouldn't object to it being included in a separate article linked from the country article but let's face it, we aren't going to do it well.

People who find themselves in need of those services will look somewhere other than Wikivoyage, and they should look somewhere else. Wikivoyage is not going to be reliable and up-to-date on this. It is one thing to provide out-of-date hotel and restaurant information; providing out-of-date abortion information could create more stress for people already dealing with a stressful situation. Ground Zero (talk) 23:15, 27 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We should be doing that for countries, just like we track the legality of homosexuality, etc. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:33, 27 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree with GZ. If we do this to every single country, then someone's got to make sure the info isn't going to get out-of-date and reliable, but who is going to be that "someone"? The legality of abortion is in my opinion, a bit too important for us to be a reliable source. Hypothetically, if I were in this stressful situation, I would never, ever trust an online travel guide that can be edited by anyone without providing a source. Let's leave this for the encyclopedia and other more important sources rather than a travel guide wiki.
However, if everyone insists, then I would say it should be covered in a travel topic, but an indication of when it was updated must clearly be written, and it should be indef semi-protected. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 00:08, 28 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Discovering that you are LGBTQ while travelling does not create the same urgent need for reliable, up-to-date information as discovering that you are pregnant. (Not you, but one, I assume.)
There have been protests in the U.S. about a lot of things in the last six years or longer. I think that a general note in the Stay Safe section about avoiding protests and the possibility of violence is a better idea than trying to keep up to date on which protests are happening now. There is always an eagerness to provide warnings about current events, but little inclination to remove the warnings when things have settled down, resulting in out-of-date and misleading warnings. As violence has occurred as far as I know at only one abortion rights rally since the SCOTUS ruling, I think it is premature to conclude that we need a warning on the national article. Ground Zero (talk) 00:21, 28 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The protests that I have encountered so far have been peaceful. What I think perhaps could be mentioned is that it's a particularly volatile topic right now due to the SCOTUS decision, so visitors should take extra care not to bring it up when talking to locals. The dog2 (talk) 00:30, 28 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's fine to bring it up if you want someone's opinion. I don't think violence is very likely at protests. What's much more important is what happens if a traveler needs an abortion. Keeping in mind what just happened to a traveler in Malta (unviable fetus but had to be medically airlifted to Spain for an abortion), at the very least, we need to cover this in a travel topic. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:48, 28 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I added a note to Women travellers (although the risk of unwanted pregnancy is very relevant also for their partner and the to-be father). I am a bit confused about the issue now, for travellers. I wrote that if you find that you are pregnant and consider an abortion, you should get home. It isn't possible or practical for all, but I think it is for 99% of travellers who can get an abortion legally at home. Most people would notice the pregnancy and consider abortion early enough that travelling is perfectly safe and the travel is about days or weeks, not an issue of whether there are tickets for that next flight. You don't want to be alone with your travel partners (especially if your partner or best friend isn't among them) in a country where you don't know the healthcare system or finer nuances of the culture when making and carrying out that decision. If I were the best friend of a person in that situation, I'd be at the next flight there, unless they get their return tickets sooner than I'd arrive. –LPfi (talk) 07:13, 28 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If this is about people who cannot get the abortion at home, then it is close to medical tourism. We could have a travel topic on this, but I think other consideration are more important for us to cover than specific legislation in specific jurisdictions. –LPfi (talk) 07:17, 28 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Part of the point is that if you are pregnant, it may be particularly important for you to have comprehensive medical or traveller's insurance if you are planning to visit a country or part of a country that does not have or has extreme restrictions on legal abortion. What happened to the woman who was visiting Malta was that she had a severe, life-threatening complication to her pregnancy that required an abortion, but in Malta, while the fetus still has a heartbeat, an abortion is illegal. Fortunately, she had traveller's insurance that paid for her to be medically airlifted to Spain when she was too sick to take a normal flight, and she has survived the ordeal. Had she not had insurance, she could have been stuck with an unpayable debt or died. By the way, I understand that they first tried to find someone who could help her in Italy, but while abortion is legal in Italy, there are so many doctors who are conscientious objectors that it can be really hard to find someone to perform even a life-saving abortion there. That's important information for travellers to know. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:55, 28 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's important, yes. It's like not getting blood transfusion because of JW doctors or legislators (I believe it's them who refuse transfusions themselves). And you wouldn't think you'd be left without life-saving treatment in a country like Italy. How widespread is this madness? –LPfi (talk) 09:06, 28 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's certainly a real problem there. One European country that used to provide abortions freely where they're now illegal is Poland. Poland has been extremely generous to Ukrainian refugees (as opposed to refugees from Muslim countries or to African students who also fled from Ukraine, but nevertheless). However, Ukrainian women who were raped by Russian soldiers and got pregnant were shocked to discover that they could not get a legal abortion in Poland. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:14, 28 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes. Pregnancy due to rape was one of the situations I thought of. Still, however traumatic the situation, they probably have plenty of time. It is inconvenient, especially if they had time to arrange their lives in Poland, but they can easily travel e.g. to Finland (or Germany or wherever), where they'd be entitled to urgent medical care even as tourists, and I believe on terms of normal social security if they apply for temporary protection (which is granted EU-wide to Ukrainian refugees). Here abortion "on social grounds" requires discussing it (separately with two doctors, I think), but they'd probably have full support in this case, and regardless, I haven't heard that abortion would be denied here, ever. –LPfi (talk) 09:30, 28 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Don't assume everyone has the money to pay for such travel. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:38, 28 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
For the Ukrainians in Europe, I don't think that's a major problem. Even for those who don't have the funds themselves, I assume it could be arranged (more of a hassle of course, and not everybody wants to talk about their problem, but solvable). For others, of course, it can be a real problem. People working abroad could be a major such group (return ticket to be paid by the not yet received wage). I hope most travellers have the funds to return home by normal flights. –LPfi (talk) 11:33, 28 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The addition to Tips for women travellers is reasonable, but let's please keep the mention of abortion as minimal and limited as possible. While it's clear a lot of our editors are heavily invested in US politics, we really do need to do better about keeping political reactionary-ism to US politics out of Wikivoyage. A generic warning about the risks of meandering through protests of all types is sufficient and should be a "Captain Obvious" situation anyway and I don't think Roe v Wade itself warrants particular mention in the US article. In the grand scheme of "travel" or "US travel", it's not about travel and only tangentially related. Keeping travelers updated on the American news of the day is not and should not be our goal. Helping refugees or anyone to get abortions is also beyond our scope and is not and should not be one of our goals. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 11:58, 28 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The woman who had to be airlifted from Malta for a life-saving abortion was not a refugee or a protestor but someone intending to make a last trip with her husband before giving birth. I totally agree that coverage of politics should be minimized, but coverage of potentially life-threatening or hugely life-altering conditions that might befall travelers is totally on-topic for this site. Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:52, 28 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't see what Wikivoyage could have done to help that Italian woman. What happened to her was unplanned, so even if we boldly assume she was an avid reader and we had an article specifically about Pregnant Italians Who Find Out They Have Unviable Fetuses While in Malta and Need Emergency Abortions but Cannot Find Willing Doctors in Italy, it wouldn't have been of any use to her. It's highly likely that even if we went over-the-top and advised that pregnant women should never visit Malta due to their abortion laws that it wouldn't help, because women who are pregnant with the intent of having a child are not likely to be thinking about abortions. It's also a singular instance. Traveler safety is definitely a goal, but even that has to be within reason. Do you actually intend to advise pregnant women avoid Malta in the Malta article based on this one instance? ChubbyWimbus (talk) 11:06, 29 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
She was American, and what Wikivoyage can and should do is warn those who are pregnant to seriously consider taking precautions in advance, as I stated above. Let's not be flip about this. There are several categories of traveler who should think about precautions. The clearest example is travelers who are already pregnant and just might have a life-threatening complication that requires an abortion and under some circumstances, a medical airlift. A second category is people who might or plan to have sex while traveling and need to have reliable contraceptives on the front end, a morning-after pill if they fail, and might want to get an abortion if all else fails. In all cases, what we want to do is provide at best useful information but at worst, something for people to think about as part of their travel planning. Access to contraceptives is of course important to men, too, for both pregnancy prevention and disease prevention. Think about why we have articles like Common scams. The scams that are mentioned are not exhaustive, but I and perhaps you know otherwise smart people who unaccountably let their guard down while they were traveling and got robbed before they knew it. Also, mentioning an extreme case is not a call to boycott x, y and z country but is a call to consider the risks. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:57, 29 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Are you simply wanting to expand what was already added to Women travellers? I think that would be fine. It's the most directly pertinent article. If you want information elsewhere, then what article(s) are you proposing and what do you want to say in those? ChubbyWimbus (talk) 11:52, 30 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I did add a sentence to Women travellers. I think that in addition, brief remarks in the "Cope" sections of articles for countries and states would be appropriate, whether they have to do with the availability of safe abortions, policies toward gays and lesbians, availability of contraceptives, or indeed harsh drug laws, which also get mentioned in such sections. We need to keep things brief and focused squarely on practical issues that could affect travelers, not on politics. Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:33, 30 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Going into detail about abortion politics is certainly out of scope of a travel guide. That said, I think a brief summary is OK so pregnant women who want to visit can make advance preparations. For instance, they might want to purchase insurance that covers medical evacuation to an area where abortions are legal just in case the pregnancy runs into any life-threatening complications. For the main U.S. article, I think we can just say that abortions are legal nationwide if it can be demonstrated that the woman's life will be in danger from continuing the pregnancy, but in other circumstances, it differs radically by state. The dog2 (talk) 17:18, 30 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't know how clear it is that a woman in, say, Texas, could obtain an abortion in that state without operating abortion clinics if their life were in danger, and note that when politicians get involved, the question of at what point a woman's life is in danger, rather than threatened or whatever, becomes debatable, rather than solely up to doctors. At this point, I think it's best to say that state laws are in a state of flux and that it's best to check on current conditions beforehand. In the meantime, where laws are clear, they should be summarized. Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:31, 30 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't think we should cover abortion availability in this article – like most other medical procedures, it is too specific and relevant to too few short-term travelers. Moreover, there's not much that we can say concretely in this article, as availability varies widely by state. —Granger (talk · contribs) 11:08, 1 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's what to say, briefly, and then each state article should briefly cover the situation there. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:36, 1 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think I still agree with Granger. Abortion availability is outside of our scope. It is a very small and niche number of travelers who will be pregnant and then have a complication where an emergency abortion is required. We don't have any advice for pregnant travelers in country articles that I can see (China, Italy, Netherlands, Japan, Brazil, Mexico), including this one, which brings up Planned Parenthood as a place to secure contraceptives. I think it's best confined to the article for women travelers. Providing abortion information in every country or state/region article seems closer to trying to help people get abortions than trying to protect pregnant travelers with complications. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 03:56, 2 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'd argue that this information should be very briefly mentioned in all country articles. It's just coming to some of our minds now because of a U.S. Supreme Court decision, but that doesn't make the argument for exclusion of information stronger, and the specific case I brought up happened to an American traveler in Malta. And OK, emergency abortions, while not as rare as you might think, are the exception, but it is not uncommon to have an unintended pregnancy. My feeling is that it is useful to travelers to mention basic information about the availability of medical and dental care in general, contraceptives and abortions, and simply mentioning that is certainly not helping people to get abortions; it's not like we're giving them contact information. Similarly, we should also mention whether LGBT people or unmarried couples are likely to have problems in a given country, whether alcohol and weed are legal or not, and whether drug offenses are punished severely. Again, all of this should be mentioned very briefly, but the idea that pregnant women or women who might get pregnant are some kind of small niche strikes me as unduly male-centric in a somewhat objectionable way (in other words, it doesn't make me irate, but it does bug me). Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:03, 2 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Looking through this thread, there is a clear consensus against informing readers of any article except Tips for women travellers about the status of abortion anywhere. So I ask all of you: What's the justification, then, for mentioning anything about laws on alcohol, smoking or other drugs, or the situation for LGBT travelers? Just what does belong in "Cope" sections, and what's your justification? I think turning the question around is important, and I'll look forward to reading about how pregnant women and women of childbearing years are a niche group and illegal drug users are not, or whatever argument you want to advance. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:10, 2 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(edit conflict) I agree that we should give basic information about the availability of medical and dental care in general. But in most destination articles, including this one, I don't think it makes sense to go into the availability of specific procedures. This is not to say that women who might get pregnant are a small niche – obviously they aren't. But for any given medical procedure, travellers who unexpectedly need it on a short-term trip before they go back home are generally a small niche. —Granger (talk · contribs) 06:19, 2 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Again: my suggestion is to mention in Malta#Cope, Poland#Cope and such that abortion is illegal. In this article, I would mention only that abortion is illegal in some states as of 2022 and that you should check state articles for details, and I would support briefly covering the legality of abortion in state articles, not here. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:33, 2 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Travel topic on US colonies[edit]

Swept in from the pub

I have read Wikivoyage:Travellers' pub/2022#Template for approval: Template:ColonialEmpires and realised why you should not create a list of empires in Wikivoyage in any form. However, I am wondering whether we should have an article on US colonies (or insular areas if more appropriate), under the name "Former colonies of the United States of America" or "Insular areas of the United States of America". Sbb1413 (he) (talkcontribs) 05:20, 19 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Sbb1413: In theory, would make a good topic, but American colonialism was deleted last year because it had zero travel content in it. If you could find any travel-relevant sites, then I see merit in such an article, but an article with only history info is OOS. It's still a good idea in theory, though. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 06:51, 19 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I kept a copy of that article at User:Pashley/AC thinking that with some work it could become worth restoring. I did edit it some, but I have not done anywhere near all the work & am not likely to. It might serve as a starting point for anyone who wants to develop it, though. Pashley (talk) 02:19, 27 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Horse racing revisited[edit]

Coming to think of it, I really think some mention of horse racing is warranted. Even if most younger Americans no longer follow horse racing these days, the Kentucky Derby is still a major event on the American sporting calendar, and many people will tune in to the races only on this day. And yes, I know there are the Preakness Stakes and Belmont Stakes, but those tend to only be followed by horse racing enthusiasts, while the Kentucky Derby is watched by even many casual sports fans who normally do not follow horse racing. The dog2 (talk) 15:38, 21 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Since the last time we edited this article down, it has grown by 10%. This, unfortunately, is how most articles go: we continually add, but rarely delete. Is there text in the article that you think is less important than tour tect about horse-racing? It would be useful to be able to discuss which text is more valuable to readers. Ground Zero (talk) 16:27, 21 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If you insist we must cut something, high school sports is probably one I would say we can cut down on since most tourists don't go to the U.S. to watch high school sports. College sports are much more prominent than high school sports. The dog2 (talk) 17:22, 21 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think that most editors agree that articles should not expand infinitely. This is a reasonable question to ask. Ground Zero (talk) 18:59, 21 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Should we have an American sports article and farm out some of the information there that's not already in the articles about North American baseball, basketball or football? Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:54, 22 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The sports section is quite long. Branching it off would make room in a new article for information on horse racing and other less popular sports. Apparently e-gaming is now a big spectator sport (and a harbinger of the end of civilization, but no-one is listening to my views on the matter). Ground Zero (talk) 02:59, 22 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That sounds pretty harmful to me, too, but I'm an old fuddy-duddy to today's younger generations. :-) Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:01, 22 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yeah, I think branching out to a Sports in the United States article could work. And speaking of e-sports, if shooting can be considered a sport, I don't see why computer gaming can't. It requires a lot of hand-eye coordination to excel at it. The dog2 (talk) 04:43, 22 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't think the sports section is overly long (the sections on sports in Europe are double the length), but a new article would allow going into more detail, which could be useful. For the Kentucky Derby, I think the point of not mentioning an isolated event remains – unless not knowing about it might be considered a social blunder (I assume ignorance of the Super Bowl could cause some embarrassment). Those who wish to attend should read about it in Horse racing or the regional article. –LPfi (talk) 08:40, 22 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────The Kentucky Derby is not as big as the Super Bowl, but certainly, it draws attention from more than just horse racing fans. For some American women, the Kentucky Derby is basically a chance to dress up in fancy clothes and have watch parties. The dog2 (talk) 14:52, 22 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Derby isn't an isolated event. It's part of the Triple Crown of Horse-Racing, along with the Preakness and the Belmont Stakes. Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:56, 22 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, I know about the Triple Crown, but my impression is that the Kentucky Derby gets more attention than Preakness and the Belmont Stakes. Only horse racing fans seem to pay attention to the latter two, while many people who otherwise do not follow horse racing watch the Kentucky Derby, in the same way that many people who normally do not follow American football watch the Super Bowl every year. And I don't know about the latter two, but my understanding if that the Kentucky Derby is as much a fashion show as it is a horse race, as the women in particular will go to great lengths to dress up for the event, so that is where you'll see them wearing these really elaborate hats and gowns. So basically, the Kentucky Derby is to the U.S. what the Melbourne Cup is to Australia. The dog2 (talk) 19:52, 22 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree with this comment (though I think the Melbourne Cup is a significantly bigger deal in Australia than the Kentucky Derby is in the US). —Granger (talk · contribs) 23:52, 22 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Never Call/Alert the Police?[edit]

The following line grossly misrepresents the issue it's trying to address but also seems to be an attempt to guilt the traveler into bearing crimes if the perpetrator is of certain backgrounds:

"Never alert the police to a person of color, mentally ill person or homeless person simply because they appear to need help or are creating a nuisance like being intoxicated in public. The police themselves are the main danger to them."

"Never" is a strong and absolutist term, which combined with the following sentence that suggests it's extremely likely that if you call the police on a black person or someone you deem to be mentally ill or homeless that they'll be killed by the police seems to put the blame and burden of bad policing on the traveler. The language is strong and manipulative, and I don't believe the examples do anything to change that. If we are saying that the police will shoot any non-white person (aka: "person of color"), homeless person, or mentally ill person if you direct them to them, even if it is to ask them to help them then we are saying they'll shoot them over essentially ANYTHING. Travelers should not be asked to avoid calling the police if there is a crime or they feel a situation has escalated to such a degree that they believe the police should be involved, regardless of what the person of interest looks like. We should not be asking the traveler to choose between enduring crimes or being responsible for murder, especially when it's not even remotely close to being true. It's unfair and goes directly against "the traveler comes first".

I suggest just removing the sentence entirely. As advice, it's irresponsible. As an attempt to address policing issues, it's ridiculous. The situation in the US is nowhere near bad enough to warrant a demand that travelers NEVER call the police. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 13:12, 17 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How about we replace "never" with "don't" and remove the second of the two sentences? --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 14:54, 17 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We can soften it to "Consider whether it is necessary to alert the police if a person of color, mentally ill person or homeless person simply appears to need assistance or is creating a nuisance in a minor way, such as by being intoxicated in public, as police officers may lack the proper training and attitude to help, rather than harm such individuals." And then, sure, delete the second sentence. But this is a real issue that is good not to ignore, just as it would be good to warn travelers that giving money to child beggars in India risks enriching gang leaders who exploit them, etc. Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:47, 17 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yeah, I prefer Ikan's choice of wording and would agree with replacing the current text. --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 20:32, 17 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"The police may lack the proper training to help, rather than harm such individulas" - This is likely true for people who are severely mentally ill, which tends to include many homeless people, because there are real qualifications and training that are known to aid in assisting the mentally ill that the average person, including police officers, is definitely not equipped for.
With "people of color" (which should just say "black people", since that is what the issue is about in the US), this is not really the case. Although black people can be mentally ill or homeless, black people themselves don't have natural cognitive incapabilities. "Sensitivity/Bias training" exists, but there seems to be more evidence that it doesn't work than that it does, and many never bother to try and measure the effectiveness of their training at all, so the issue is not likely one that can be resolved with "training", but maybe this isn't worth trying to address.
I don't see this as akin the child beggers, because we're not asking the traveler to consider enduring a crime or potential crime against themselves or those around them with the children, while we are asking that in this case which is what makes me uncomfortable. I don't like the idea of making someone second guess themselves while a situation is escalating during a time when they could do something about it until it's too late and something bad happens. It's "don't do this thing that might make you FEEL good" vs "Don't do this thing that might keep you safe". Also, the idea that a crime may be too petty to call the police on one of the mentioned groups but not too petty to call them on someone who is white, Asian, a homeowner, etc isn't a great mindset to promote (although I recognize these may be factors when considering "is it worth it?" in people's minds), but maybe separating out black people to try and reconcile these things would just overcomplicate it and make it too wordy (that's how my attempts went, so I didn't post them).
Ikan Kekek's proposal is a clear improvement over the previous wording, so if no other proposals are made, I think I can support this as a replacement. I like it a lot for the mentally ill/homeless in particular, and the softening of the advice makes it read much more reasonably for black people and also doesn't seem to discourage black travelers from reporting crimes if they are victimized, which the original wording also did. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 03:22, 18 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm going to tell you a real story. My girlfriend and I were waiting for the bus on 14th St. and 7th Ave. one night after midnight within the past two years, and there was a Black homeless man who was feeling suicidal and walking into the street in traffic. We tried to persuade him to get out of the street, but he was despondent. We thought of calling 911 and did not, because we realized he was exactly the kind of person who was most likely to be shot by the police, and we know it's hard if not impossible to prevent the 911 operator from sending the police in addition to an ambulance. So we didn't call 911, and he eventually got out of the street without being hit, but we continued to worry and feel bad about him. That's reality in American cities. How do you want to explain it? Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:41, 18 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That story illustrates your personal thought process and justification for your decision not to call 911, but there's no way to conclude that not calling 911 saved his life from being shot by police. It would be just as easy to conclude that he would have been fine or better off if you had called or that nothing would have changed for him regardless. It's a big jump to assume he was going to be killed. I don't say that as a judgment about the decision you made, but rather about us using it as a basis for constructing advice.
As I said, I like your wording overall. I've thought about adding a line to the affect of "if the situation becomes criminal or you or others are in danger, don't hesitate to call the police", but I think it reads awkwardly. Maybe just using your paragraph is best. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 13:59, 18 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK, but you understand my point: the fact that my girlfriend and I had to think about that is real. Don't misinterpret me as claiming infallible powers of prediction; it's just that it's worth considering how likely you are going to be to help someone or get them killed. Had he consented to having an ambulance called, we would have called one and stayed to make sure it came and took him away safely. This was a situation in which he did not consent and believed everyone wanted him dead. And how many times have you heard of suicide by cop? But the cop has to pull the trigger. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:55, 18 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Budding edit war[edit]

Do we really want such long region descriptions? Isn't less more? And does anyone want to tolerate a unilateral move of West Virginia to the Mid-Atlantic region? I would suggest that we should not tolerate unilateral changes, especially when they increase the length of this article. I also don't think we should call the Mid-Atlantic states "subtropical." That becomes meaningless when it refers to states with such northerly latitudes, whether or not today's still-common winter temperatures in the 20s and 30s become a thing of the past in a couple of decades. The world is warming. Are we going to call Greenland subtropical in a couple of decades because it's hotter than it used to be? Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:29, 29 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I also found the long descriptions and additions fairly meaningless, but I didn't revert the IPs edit to prevent myself being involved in this edit war (I did fix a bunch of its/it's issues, though). For one, though, any place that's around 40° north of the equator is not subtropical (which extends down to 35° from the equator at max); I also don't support any unilateral reregionalisations. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 07:42, 29 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There might have been some improvements, but the IP demonstrated total disrespect for the rest of the community. If somebody wants to read the additions and tweaks to find some pearls, then by all means, go ahead, but there is too much bulk for me to be interested. For one, we try hard to keep this article from growing. –LPfi (talk) 09:28, 29 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I feel the same way. No problem if anyone wants to reinsert some small subset of these edits in a piecemeal way. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:08, 30 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I reverted today's edits. They included a lot of unnecessary detail and namedropping best left to the region articles. After the edits, the region descriptions were walls of text. If the IP user wants some of this to stay, they should make small carefully copy edited tweaks, wait for reactions and back off or try to build a consensus when reverted. –LPfi (talk) 10:34, 30 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If you were to ask me, this smells of block evasion also. That's why I changed protection on this page. Ibaman (talk) 12:09, 30 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A certain user who once claimed to be moderate? Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:38, 30 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

More specific regional descriptions, climate and geography errors, and deleting backhanded additions[edit]

This page reads like it was written by someone trying desperately to make the US look as boring and unappealing as possible, with the least amount of description given to its massive and diverse regions and, most inexcusable, a factually wrong climatic summarization of the country that the administrator of this page keeps re-instating inexplicably. A country like Canada, with much larger regions of empty, flat land, gets these lush, long descriptions, and we get almost nothing? The kind of cursory sentences used to sum up our regions might befit a country like Australia, which has massive states consisting of flat and almost entirely unpopulated land - they are utterly inadequate for a country like the US, which often has diverse culture, climate, geography, and settlement patterns across individual states, let alone entire regions.

One example - describing the plains states as "flatter than a pancake" and giving no other description of the region is wildly inadequate - the region contains Badlands National Park, Black Hills National Forest (decidedly not "flatter than a pancake" areas of the region), carved mountain-side monuments like Mount Rushmore National Memorial and the Crazy Horse Memorial, the tourist town of Deadwood, Theodore Roosevelt National Park, and other attractions, principally wildlife and storm-chasing tours.

Because the Great Plains regional article is itself sparse, we would do better to focus on selling the region more in this page's description of the region. Similarly, the Mid-Atlantic article is just a bit too sparse to justify the equally sparse description here.

The brevity also is a massive disservice to a number of other regions as well - Texas, for instance. I'm unsure of what this regional description is supposed to be selling about the state - it sounds remarkably boring. Is that the intention? Is this article intended to be an anti-American hit-piece designed to repel people from the US?

Other examples - why the hell would you highlight "endless freeways" when writing a description for Los Angeles? You have GOT to be kidding me. A world famous megacity known for so many things, and THAT is what you chose to write in your brief description of it? This has got to be changed.

Then the climate issue: describing the climate of the country as "temperate" is wildly non-descript and it is not accurate - the north of the country has a continental climate, the south a subtropical one. The west has a complex mix of climatic conditions not mentioned here. The cold of the country is exaggerated in the climate section. The north or northeast does not have "mild summers", it has warm to hot summers. Why this wasn't changed immediately I don't know.

And then having the audacity to gatekeep an article so hard over stuff that is basically wrong, in a factual sense, is infuriating.

--Ironictyn98 (talk) 07:09, 2 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If there are weak descriptions in the region articles, that should be fixed there. No use name-dropping attractions that are not widely known except by those who know where they are anyway. The edits made the region descriptions walls of text, which doesn't help sell the regions.
There is a screenful of text describing the nuances of that "temperate". Don't argue with such false statements. And again: accept that there is a consensus on that this article is too long. If you want to improve region descriptions, do so without making them significantly longer.
LPfi (talk) 09:52, 2 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Let me get this straight: because you're alleging attractions might not be widely known, that, to you, is justification to not mention them, or to not sell the region as well as you possibly can by mentioning them? That is a terrible form of reasoning. You seriously think there's no need mentioning important geography and sites of a region to entice travelers to that region? Are you kidding?
The Badlands are a fairly well known national park. The Black Hills are a significant mountain range in the region, and are home to such famous monuments as Mount Rushmore. To claim there's no use "name dropping" these attractions is ridiculous.
And they did not make them "walls of text" - what your descriptions do is the opposite of selling the regions. Fighting against length to this extent is silly and reductive.
And there is no description of that "temperate" climate, which is not temperate in the first place. A continental climate is a temperate zone climate, but it's climatic conditions are not temperate, they are extreme. The same goes for the humid subtropical zone. The climate is described poorly.
Also, including mention of "freeways" in LA's description is backhanded and silly. That needs to be deleted.
This is not your personal project. Ironictyn98 (talk) 10:24, 2 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • this is a community. No article is a personal project. This article is not meant to become yours. There is consensus this article is too long and wordy. Unilateral, undiscussed changes will not fly. Peopose your changes and debate and gather consensus, this is the Wikivoyage way. Ibaman (talk) 10:55, 2 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Like he said, if there are deficiencies in region articles, those should be addressed by discussions on the talk pages of the region articles. As for this article, if you really want to have a chance to persuade a consensus about anything, I think you are best off focusing on each change separately, or at any rate by proposing specific changes in language for our consideration, than by trying to rubbish the whole article and supposing that would cause the rest of the users to give you a blank check to make every change you want. Of course, if you are a banned user block-evading, all of this discussion is a complete waste of time. Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:27, 2 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yellow Covid banner[edit]

The yellow Covid banner at the top of this page is vastly oversized, overwhelming, and disproportionate to the nature of the thing at this point. Seems reasonable for there to be such a banner, but this one screams: "CRISIS!!" Maybe its size can be reduced a bit. Keystone18 (talk) 17:20, 6 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Added content[edit]

Lots of new text has been added recently], mostly by User:Tuyuhun plus some by User:The dog2. I haven't read through it carefully, but keeping in mind that this article has a tendency to get longer and longer and this text was added without discussion, against a consensus of requiring discussion leading to consensus to add significant content, which Tuyuhun presumably didn't know about before I posted to their user talk page but The dog2 did, I think the question of whether it was really important to add all of this text at the country level ought to be discussed. If it's not really needed, should we keep any of it or just revert to the status quo ante? Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:14, 9 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm happy to have a discussion about this. I think RV and caravan camping should be mentioned in some form because it is indeed a popular way to visit America's national parks. We don't have RVs or caravans in Singapore, just to give you the foreigner's perspective here. The first time I ever saw one in person was when I went to Australia. Many people from Asia won't be familiar with the concept of travelling with a RV or caravan, with China perhaps being the exception since RVs have seen a explosion in popularity in China in the past 4 years or so. The dog2 (talk) 04:05, 9 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm also happy to discuss this. I added more to the section on "Historical Attractions" - specifically on non-British European history/sites in the U.S. and on Native American sites because the prior status of that section was both quite empty and overly favored British colonial history in the U.S.. I'm perfectly fine with some/all of it being reversed if that's what the consensus forms, but I do feel that the section would benefit from at least some mention of historical sites not pertaining to British colonial history. Otherwise the section looks too skeletal.
For a similar reason I added information to the "Museums and Galleries" section because it was heavily NYC/East Coast focused. As someone who has lived in every region of the U.S. except the East Coast, the section before edits felt like it was only focused on the history of the U.S. east of the Mississippi River. I also updated the section discussing marijuana since Minnesota legalized the recreational use of it this week (the week of June 5, 2023).
Tuyuhun (talk) 05:34, 9 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
From the link you mention, as a non-American who's visited the country several times:
  1. "Mainland Chinese" is more succinct and clear than PRC.
  2. The immigration information seems kind of important.
  3. Highways linking towns – yes, I think this kind of information for exploring more valuable destinations off the beaten path is kind of valuable. It's a bit too niche to go in driving in the United States, IMO.
  4. Interstates are to federal standards, but I'm confused about the road signs bit. The US isn't Canada for each province to have their own speed limit sign, per se.
  5. Personally, I'd say keep the semi-truck information. Constantly having to pass trucks are annoying, especially if you're unaware a road is full of trucks, aren't they?
  6. What Tuyuhun mentioned re historic sites.
  7. About marijuana/DUI – I'm not sure about that.
SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 07:31, 9 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Again admitting that I haven't read the new text in full, is there any way it could be summarized much more briefly? The problem is that the longer this article gets, the less user-friendly it is to read, and lots of information could be covered only at the multi-state region, state, sub-state region or city/park level. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:31, 9 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If some driving information is too niche for Driving in the United States, then it is very much too niche to mention here – is it any use for those not driving? I moved it and some other sentences to there. –LPfi (talk) 12:31, 9 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A lot of the information about Interstate highways would be better in driving in the United States where it will be available to those doing driving holidays. I agree with Ikan Kekek that making this a huge article about everything about the USA renders it less useful for travellers. Ground Zero (talk) 12:32, 9 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think there now is just one sentence on Interstates here. –LPfi (talk) 13:36, 9 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree with User:SHB2000 that we should still include a sentence (however brief) on semi-trucks on the highways. These trucks are massive (especially when compared to their European and Asian counterparts) and provide their own set of dangers to consider when driving with them. Those of us who have grown up in the U.S. are used to them, but for someone traveling from a foreign country these trucks might be an unexpected and perhaps unwelcome surprise. Tuyuhun (talk) 17:47, 9 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I would say the part on semi-trucks should be in the Driving in the United States article. Just so you guys know, Australia has even bigger trucks called "road trains". And unlike the U.S., Australia's freeway network is very limited, so in Australia, you will need to overtake them by pulling into the side of the road with oncoming traffic. On the U.S. Interstates, overtaking the big trucks is relatively easy. The dog2 (talk) 22:16, 9 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

About RV/caravan camping: first of all, to Americans, caravans are led by camels and go through the Sahara. But wouldn't the United States national parks article be the most logical place to put ways to visit national parks? I don't see the likelihood of visitors renting an RV to visit the nation's cities. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:10, 9 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
About attractions: my feeling is, make sure the ones we mention here are reasonably balanced between the regions and between different interests, but remember that this is meant to only lay out some highlights and give readers a sense of the range of types of things to see and do. Adding more points of interest is problematic. To be fair, the See and Do sections don't look too long to me now, but we have to keep in mind the length of the whole article. I'm going to trim some things, as for example, I see a reference to the United States Virgin Islands, which are not covered in this article. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:15, 9 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree that you won't want to rent a RV to tour the major American cities, but that is definitely a popular way to visit the national parks and state parks, or even just rural areas in general. It's the same in Australia and Canada. Renting a RV to visit Sydney or Toronto doesn't make sense, but renting RVs to tour their national parks and other wilderness areas is popular. The dog2 (talk) 02:49, 10 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Which is why it makes sense to put in the national parks article. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:03, 10 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
But as The dog2 mentioned, RV touring is also a popular way to explore state parks and other wilderness areas, too (and not just national parks). SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 04:40, 10 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
How about farming it out to Driving in the United States, then? Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:43, 10 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sure, we could farm out the details to that article. But we should have at least a brief statement that touring wilderness areas such as national parks and state parks by RV is a popular American pastime. The dog2 (talk) 06:33, 10 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't know. Given that this article is about the whole country, I believe it's primarily designed for visitors from other countries. How common is it for tourists from abroad to rent an RV? Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:53, 10 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I added a short paragraph on cars being a common choice for visiting national parks. I assume that is good to know for those that did not intend to drive before reading this article. I don't know how common a choice RVs are among visitors from abroad, but I suppose they are worth considering if you are going to do the country away from cities. –LPfi (talk) 06:58, 10 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Well, the purpose of this article is to inform foreign visitors to the U.S., so even if it is common for American domestic tourists but not foreigners to travel to wilderness areas in RVs, we should let foreigners know that this is an option. I know many Canadians drive their RVs across the border to tour the natural attractions in the U.S. And I'd presume a good number of Australians and New Zealanders would want to rent RVs to tour the U.S. given that RV culture is strong in those countries too. It will be less common for someone from Asia given that to my knowledge, China is the only Asian country where RVs are a thing, but I know some more adventurous types who drove from Las Vegas to Whistler in rented RVs via Grand Canyon, Bryce Canyon, Grand Teton, Yellowstone, Banff, Jasper, Yoho and Glacier national parks for their university graduation trips. The dog2 (talk) 14:55, 10 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Article length[edit]

In the last 18 months, this article has grown by more than 10%. That is rapid growth. Is it because the article was lacking information that travellers need to know to visit the United States? Or because editors like adding what they know to a high-profile article? Are we willing to let this article become longer and longer indefinitely? Or should we try to cut it back by moving text to related region and travel topic articles? Ground Zero (talk) 14:01, 9 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I thought there was an agreement in practice that the article wasn't going to be expanded any further, but maybe it is time to rethink that. --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 22:38, 12 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I thought so too, but it is hard to impose that on new editors. Experienced editors should respect that, but don't. Ground Zero (talk) 23:25, 12 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If one finds something important missing, it doesn't feel right to just not include it. The right thing to do is to check for things to move out, things to remove and ways to get the text shorter without harming the article, but you don't always have time for that. Whether something really is important to include, well, if it is more than a sentence or so, it should be discussed. And if one has added things, then one should return to the article to mend it, if not right away, then soon afterwards. –LPfi (talk) 05:27, 13 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Possibly buy, eat, and drink section could be partially moved to their own travel topic articles? A summary of the most important points could be included here, but the detailed information could be moved to the travel topics with a "main article" wikilink. --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 11:38, 13 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't see an obvious way to shorten Buy or Drink by moving away things. Much of the content should be here, and what should ideally be moved away isn't enough for creating a good article. Eat, however, already has its own article(s), and the section here is much longer than it needs to be. –LPfi (talk) 13:57, 13 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sure, I agree with that point of view. --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 01:51, 14 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Has anyone de-encyclopified the American cuisine article yet? SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 06:52, 14 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've started trimming, and have cut the article down to the length it was on June 5. If anyone objects to the minor edits I gave made, I ask that if they are going to restore any of it, please make other cuts instead of just adding stuff back in. Ground Zero (talk) 20:32, 15 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks, good edits. I would have kept the Erie Canal in, but I guess I agree that it's not essential to mention at the country level. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:58, 15 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We should avoid trying to include every detail about the United States of America in this article if we want it to be useful for travellers. The units of measure used in doctor's offices, for example. Do travellers really need a warning about the fact that doctors offices use metric, which most visitors to the U.S. are familiar with? After a lot of work, I have managed to cut it back to the size it was in September 2022. That's less than 10 months of expansion of this article. Some editors are resisting even these minor cuts. Ground Zero (talk) 03:24, 24 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No, we don't, and I appreciate your work on this article. I don't know about deleting any mention of Planned Parenthood, though. Is there some spinoff article about healthcare in the U.S. where we can put that and other information? I think there isn't, and the U.S. has a weird enough health (non-)system that people in most other developed countries could really use some information, but we don't want it to become too long here. The risk in such a spinoff article, just as in this one, is to go off on tangents that aren't really travel-related, but I think an article like that should mention what kind of traveler's health insurance visitors should consider getting, to avoid being billed outlandish amounts if something bad happens to them while they're in the U.S., or failing that, what other resources they can use in certain situations to limit their costs. Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:01, 5 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Birth control and STIs seems to be very specific forms of health care to mention in an article about the whole country. Is there other text that you think we could do without, or maybe health care in the USA could be explored in more detailed in Working in the United States and linked from here? Ground Zero (talk) 17:11, 5 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'll revert edits like this one that just add extra text for the sake of it. If a change like this is really important to a contributor, they can find other less important text to remove. Frankly, it just comes across as page-lengthening tinkering, not an improvement. Ground Zero (talk) 01:40, 7 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As I stated above, but I guess not clearly enough to be unambiguous, I think that healthcare in the U.S. is such a weird (non-)system that it should be summarized in its own article, as it's relevant not only to people who work or go to school here but also tourists. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:02, 10 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think that putting the details in the Working article with links from the Studying and main articles ensures that the information is where it is most likely needed, i.e., for workers, and easily accessible from the other articles for students and visitors. I'm fine with a separate article, though. That would leave more room for it to expand and provide more in-depth coverage. I don't know enough about the subject to be able to contribute to such an article, though. Ground Zero (talk) 12:32, 10 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think that would be an article that User:Doc James could really help start and keep accurate, if he so chooses. Doc, any interest? Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:46, 12 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Being Canadian I do not have a clear understanding of the working of the US healthcare system. All I know is it is the one country in the world were I would strongly recommend healthcare insurance. Other countries the actual cost of paying out of pocket is generally not a big deal. Travel Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:56, 12 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ah, I didn't realize you were Canadian. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:14, 12 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There was a great New Yorker cartoon years ago. A man and a woman are talking at a cocktail party, as people in New Yorker cartoons do. She says to him, "You seem very familiar, but somehow strange. Are you Canadian?" Ground Zero (talk) 23:09, 12 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's hilarious! Maybe not quite a propos, but I tended to forget that the Canadians who were my graduate school mates were foreign students, until they mentioned having to discuss something at the Foreign Students Office. Of course I know Canada is a different country and knew they were from Canada, but they didn't feel foreign to me; does that make any sense? Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:40, 19 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Exiting by land[edit]

My experience recently with crossing the border into Canada by land is that Canadian immigration reported my entry to the U.S. government, which then used that to generate the record that I had left the country. I believe this is now standard practice when you enter Canada by land from the U.S. So even though U.S. CBP's web-site says that you should save evidence that you left the country prior to the expiry of your maximum allowed stay, it might not actually be necessary. I don't know how it works at the Mexican border since I have never been to Mexico. Do people think that is worth mentioning? The dog2 (talk) 18:05, 22 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Regional cultural differences[edit]

Re Special:Diff/4684789: The dog2, no, it certainly isn't "very different" from a global perspective. Both the US South and Northeast may have significant regional identities, but to a non-American, two "very different cultures" would be like comparing the cultures of Morocco and Sudan or Chukotka to Kazakhstan. I realize US (and Australian) media tends to overemphasize the differences between the two, but let's not be a US-defaultist/US-centric travel guide and fall into that. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 08:56, 24 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@SHB2000: I also want to point out that it's hardly unique for one country to have many different cultures within its borders. For instance, a Russian from Moscow travelling to Chechnya will often say that it is just as if he is travelling to a different country. I guess it can be subjective as to what "very different" means, but when I visited Louisiana, I noticed that the local food was so distinctive, that it hardly resembles international stereotypes of what "American food" is. For instance, the conventional wisdom we have in Singapore is that white people don't eat spicy food, but the moment you step off the plane in Louisiana, that myth will be shattered, whereas if you go to California or New York, that myth largely holds true. You could in fact make an argument that New York is culturally closer to Ontario (a province of Canada) than to Louisiana. The dog2 (talk) 13:08, 24 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Of course. And it's also geographically much closer to Ontario than to Louisiana. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:15, 25 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oh, on California, you think white Californians don't routinely eat spicy food in taquerias and elsewhere? Moreover, if you go to a diner or many other types of Californian restaurants, you'll find huevos rancheros, chorizo omelets with salsa and black beans on the side and other types of spicy Cal-Mex food along with fare like eggs over easy that you'd see at diners in any other part of the country. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:08, 8 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
IMO Cal-Mex isn't usually as spicy as Tex-Mex, but it's much spicier than anything in the upper Midwest ("where butter is a spice"). The Indian restaurants are also an option for people who like spicy food.
OTOH the food I'd expect in a restaurant that says it serves "California cuisine" is something focused on beautiful, seasonal vegetables, prepared with minimal spices, so that the original flavor shines through. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:49, 11 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I used to live in Malaysia, where food is usually very spicy (and my friends know me as someone who eats whole chilis), and I've certainly had some very robustly spiced Cal-Mex food. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:53, 11 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK, I'm not familiar with Cal-Mex, but taquerias are usually considered to be Mexican rather than American restaurants. There are very good taquerias in Chicago since there is a huge Mexican community, and you can certainly get good, authentic Mexican chorizos, but they're typically considered to serve Mexican rather than traditional American food. Of course, these days, with less segregation than in the 1950s and increasing multi-culturalism, most younger white Chicagoans would be familiar with spicy food thanks to the local Mexican community.The dog2 (talk) 22:57, 11 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Cal-Mex=California Mexican. It's a local cuisine and completely mainstream in California, as per my remark that typical diners and luncheonettes in California that are not taquerias and don't particularly serve the Mexican community very commonly have some Cal-Mex dishes on the menu, and salsa is a very standard condiment that is often on tables or brought out for diners along with ketchup and such. Remember that California used to be part of Mexico, which is not true of Chicago, though that city has a large Mexican community and great Mexican restaurants. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:24, 11 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Area codes[edit]

By phone states:

"You should know the primary area code for where you're staying, as signs and advertisements may not always include it"

I have the impression that Connect sections of U.S. destinations not always tell the area code.

The level in the hierarchy covered by one or a couple of area codes vary, which may be the reason I often haven't seen them. However, a foreigner cannot easily guess what level is the relevant one. Would it make sense to ensure that the state articles say something about this, and that the actual code is told at the relevant level (some redundancy hardly hurts either).

One can of course guess the area code from listings, but that guessing easily gets awkward for a stranger – for Finnish articles I have tried to group digits so that the (varying-length) prefix is obvious, and noted that this requires quite some knowledge on how the local systems work. I have failed when trying to do the same for some Asian and African articles.

LPfi (talk) 07:15, 8 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Even for Americans it's not always easy to guess the relevant level of the hierarchy. An area code might cover a whole state or only part of a city, or anything in between. Guessing the area code based on listings should be easier in the US than in Finland, though, because it's always exactly 3 digits here. I agree it wouldn't hurt for more articles to mention the local area code. I also wonder if the advice you quoted is becoming dated – I feel like signs that don't include the area code have become rare compared to when I was little, though it's possible they're more common in parts of the country where a single area code still covers a large area. —Granger (talk · contribs) 14:44, 8 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Is it really still true that many signs and advertisements don't include the area code? That would be a mistake, because ever since cellphones became prevalent, any area code could be used in any part of the country. Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:33, 8 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think cell phones, and especially the practice of keeping your old cell number when you move to a new area, have changed this. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:51, 11 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It seems we have agreement that this advice is outdated, so I've adjusted the article. —Granger (talk · contribs) 15:28, 15 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Israel and Palestine[edit]

Can we please stop edit warring about this? People have the right to express their opinions about this conflict in the U.S. They should be respectful, as is true anywhere. We don't need to tell people they should shut up. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:04, 8 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]